How close are we to WWIII?

[TLS Guy]

Yes - but it seems to me, that although Article 5 declares all members go to war with any invader of any member - it does not consider the case where one member invaded another...

The treaty only covered what the member nations considered a possible situation - this circumstance is not covered!

If the US invaded Greenland, is the US automatically at war with itself?

The EU+Britain is now mobilising - changing their defence posture to one based on no dependence on the USA... this will take a few years to put into place, once that is in place, I expect a new NATO (by another name) is likely to be negotiated - one that may include Canada, but is unlikely to include the USA. (and yes that puts Canada in a complicated situation...)

Trump won't be here forever and more likely than not gone before the end of the year. I think the charter is actually clear, that if a NATO member went rogue and attacked another it would be considered an attack against the rest. In the event Trump was allowed to carry out his threat, which I doubt, the US would be fighting the rest of NATO. In any event I can not imagine Congress not putting the breaks on before it came to that. Also there are strong relationships between the military top brass on NATO and I highly doubt any senior NATO commander would obey any order to attack another NATO country. More likely they would eliminate Trump pronto. In the unlikely event that Congress went along with it, the military would likely intervene and we would be under military rule until a new Constitution could be approved with more robust guard rails. But of course there are a multitude of ways this could play out.

 

[Alex2507]

I'm hoping sanity will prevail

This is so f^%&ed up. I'm actually scared to make jokes anymore.

Sanity has left the conversation. Good guys don't wear masks.

Stage coach bandits wear f^%&ing masks.

 

[dlaloum]

Trump won't be here forever and more likely than not gone before the end of the year. I think the charter is actually clear, that if a NATO member went rogue and attacked another it would be considered an attack against the rest. In the event Trump was allowed to carry out his threat, which I doubt, the US would be fighting the rest of NATO. In any event I can not imagine Congress not putting the breaks on before it came to that. Also there are strong relationships between the military top brass on NATO and I highly doubt any senior NATO commander would obey any order to attack another NATO country. More likely they would eliminate Trump pronto. In the unlikely event that Congress went along with it, the military would likely intervene and we would be under military rule until a new Constitution could be approved with more robust guard rails. But of course there are a multitude of ways this could play out.

Depends on how successful their purge of military officer ranks has been...

 

[Alex2507]

I'm actually scared to make jokes anymore.

if Greenland is invaded, it would be just a matter of time before it was our turn

Do you guys not want freedom?

 

[highfigh]

I suspect that this would be the action of any nuclear-armed country on the verge of being overrun. Uttering such threats is a sign of weakness.

OK, so who wants to flinch first?

 

[highfigh]

The republicans are desperate for power and keep supporting him.....good luck on anything but death ending his term.

And the Democrats don't have a death grip on power? Look at the length of time in office by Democratic members of Congress.

 

[highfigh]

Yes - but it seems to me, that although Article 5 declares all members go to war with any invader of any member - it does not consider the case where one member invaded another...

The treaty only covered what the member nations considered a possible situation - this circumstance is not covered!

If the US invaded Greenland, is the US automatically at war with itself?

The EU+Britain is now mobilising - changing their defence posture to one based on no dependence on the USA... this will take a few years to put into place, once that is in place, I expect a new NATO (by another name) is likely to be negotiated - one that may include Canada, but is unlikely to include the USA. (and yes that puts Canada in a complicated situation...)

Why would one NATO member attack another? Remember, Greenland is a territory of Denmark in a similar way to Puerto Rico or Guam being a US territory- it's not part of the US.

The US has been at war with itself for a long, long time.

 

[highfigh]

We have been severely distracted by ICE events here in the Twin Cities and to some extent elsewhere.

So, back to Greenland. I have been researching this and it is complicated.

I would say at the outset, that this totally crazy idea of Trump's to take Greenland by force. It is the best evidence yet that he has advanced dementia.

The issues involved are complex, but this is what I can find out.

Invading Greenland would contravene the NATO charter and elevate the US to rogue status among NATO countries and the rest of the "Western Block."

It is causing grave concern in the NATO alliance.

This is what has happened so far.

The Danes, Germany, Norway and Sweden have sent some armed forces to Greenland already.

France Canada and the Netherlands have agreed to commit forces.

The UK have sent a senior army officer to Greenland on what is termed a recognizance mission. However the UK are actively trying to recruit more to join the armed forces. They have been dusting off plans for active call up and have extended the age limit for active call up from 55 to 65.

The real hooker here is that Russia has indicated that if US tries to take Greenland by force, then they will also invade Greenland, and not only oppose allied forces, but take Greenland by force for themselves.

So, the take home from this is that the US trying to take Greenland by force from the Danes would be a catastrophic misjudgement and could easily spark WW3.

Congress need to take this up as a matter of urgency, especially as Trump has just rebuffed the Danish and Greenlander envoys after their White House meeting.

If Trump should give the order, the Generals should NOT obey the order under any circumstances.

More to the point Congress need to get their act together ASAP to prevent Trump from ever giving an order to invade Greenland. This needs to happen as a matter urgency.

This demented individual in the White House is now a clear and present danger and needs to be removed ASAP.

We still have the 25th Amendment. OTOH, that's invalidated if Martial Law is declared. Still, the military would have to obey his orders if he does that and I don't think they will.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Do you guys not want freedom?

We need that kind of freedom like a hole in the head.

 

[GO-NAD!]

OK, so who wants to flinch first?

Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[GO-NAD!]

And the Democrats don't have a death grip on power? Look at the length of time in office by Democratic members of Congress.

Ah, but being in office and being in power are two different things.

 

[mtrycrafts]

We still have the 25th Amendment. OTOH, that's invalidated if Martial Law is declared. Still, the military would have to obey his orders if he does that and I don't think they will.

And the VP and majority of cabinet will remove him? Really?

 

[GO-NAD!]

Why would one NATO member attack another? Remember, Greenland is a territory of Denmark in a similar way to Puerto Rico or Guam being a US territory- it's not part of the US.

The US has been at war with itself for a long, long time.

Well, that is the central question, isn't it? None of the reasons spouted by Trump or his minions holds any water. Yet, they just have to have it.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Well, that is the central question, isn't it? None of the reasons spouted by Trump or his minions holds any water. Yet, they just have to have it.

Now I am thinking that maybe if he has Greenland, he could get financial kickback from selling mining rights? After all, he and family have made billions already.

 

[lovinthehd]

And the Democrats don't have a death grip on power? Look at the length of time in office by Democratic members of Congress.

Not even close to the same thing.